State ex rel. Charity Hospital v. Fullerton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding denial of petition was arbitrary and capricious where USCIS’s action “conflict[ed] with the plain language of its regulations,” “unreasonably stretch[ed] the ra- tionale of [BIA precedent]” and ran “counter to the evidence in the record”
• finding that “[t]he evidence before the agency indicated that the call option [did] not provide plaintiffs with a guaranteed redemption, and that it differ[ed] in critical ways from the debt arrangements that Matter of Izummi determined were banned by regulations.”
• finding USCIS’ denial arbitrary and capricious because the alien investors had placed their money at risk; there was “no security that [the investors] would ever see [their] money again”
• finding USCIS' denial arbitrary and capricious because the alien investors had placed their money at risk; there was \no security that [the investors] would ever see [their] money again\
• contrasting Doe and Chiayu Chang's call options with Matter of Izummi 's put option
• contrasting Doe and Chiayu Chang’s call options with Matter of Izummi ’s put option

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).